Xref: utzoo sci.space:26422 sci.space.shuttle:6877 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk From: mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: space news from Nov 5 AW&ST Message-ID: Date: 14 Dec 90 02:33:22 GMT References: <20699@crg5.UUCP> <20714@crg5.UUCP> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 37 Nntp-Posting-Host: pawl21.pawl.rpi.edu >OSC and Hercules are the only U.S. aerospace companies since the >Shuttle to development a totally new, successful orbital launcher. >They did it for 1/50th (2%) of what it cost to develop the first Shuttle. >Unlike the major Shuttle contractors, they have carried a loss on the >project (in other words risked their own money) eying future commercial >markets. These are encouraging facts not gripes. Sorry I sounded like >such a sourpuss over such a happy event. :-) > >Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com As I am not yet knowledgeable enough about other companies' R & D, I will primarily discuss the one corporation I do know something about, McDonnell Douglas. While I truly admire the efforts of OSC and Hercules, they are by no means the only companies doing risky R & D. The 5 NASP contractors are each supporting about 10% of the development cost, with NASA and the DoD splitting the remaining 50%. This too is an orbiting vehicle, and it has no guarrantee of actually flying, even if it is technically up to par. The contractors are risking their own money to develop the technology to enable them (and the United States) to remain world aerospace leaders. MDC has also spent about $3 billion on the development of the MD-11. True, it is not an orbital launcher, but it is a major aerospace project that caused the company to forego considerable profit (and raises :) ) in the hope of future commercial success. Other programs (government and commercial) that require significant up-front money are the MD-12X, NOTAR, YF-23 (by design) and the A-12 (not by design). I'm sure most of the other large aerospace firms are also performing "risky" R&D. My point here is to say that there are some major advances occurring right now in aerospace, and many of them are due to the risk taken by the large aerospace firms. I do not mean to diminish the accomplishments of OSC and Hercules, but they are not alone. Although they may become "the competition", I wish them great success. Michael Kent mvk@pawl.rpi.edu